AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1

[Tezcatlipoca]

By asking for evidence that a sample could not possibly be of extraterrestial origin.

Any and every sample could be of extraterrestial origin and just be made to convicingly look like an ordinary material or just happen to have a known makeup. That's the underlaying flaw of invoking the supernatural that ufologists fall into - because they can not point to any actual qualities of whatever it is they want to believe in we can ascribe whatever we want to the "phenomenon".

The crux of this is also aptly demonstrated by how they have gone from wanting people to call it a "UFO" (Unidentified Flying Object) to UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomen) to UAP (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon). We have gone from something vaguely concrete with actual qualities (it flies, it is an object) to something that might as well include ghosts or leprechauns.

This is one of the many reasons the equivalence you are implying here ("I am asking both sides") simply does not exist.

The switch from UFO to UAP (Aerial) was done to distance from the stigma of the term UFO. There's nothing wrong with this. The switch from UAP (Aerial) to UAP (Anomalous) was most literally done to consider a broader set of phenomena that have proven to make up unidentified sightings, such as, mirages, which are not a flying object, and thus cannot be a UFO. In such cases, the term UAP (Anomalous) or something of the sort is a far more accurate reference than calling it a UFO. This, makes it more concrete and encompassing of more observed qualities than the term UFO, which would be misleadingly and inaccurately applied to many sightings.

 

[Mendel]

I'm more frustrated by the lack of interviewee names, and the names of others who ARRO contacted, than the lack of spectroscopy results for the miracle scrap. Only to be expected, I guess.

My guess (speculation, rather) (and probably wildly inaccurate) is that this is caused by AARO's lack of title 50 authorization. The report details that AARO entered into an agreement to gain access to all relevant CAPs which forces them to obscure all identifying information for the people they're investigating:

This may also explain the heightened level of FOIA redactions that John Greenewald started noticing in 2023.

---

On another note, scientists in the "people" fields (including medicine) are often unable to publish their raw data, for privacy reasons. Scientific standards for microbiology and history differ.

 

[Mendel]

Why I think AARO's evidence is better than Grusch's:
Kirkpatrick had the access that Grusch and the people who talked to Grusch did not.

 

[Mendel]

Footnote editing is atrocious:

I can only imagine how many revisions this report went through in the months it took to clear DOPSR. I know from my own writing that those late edits are most likely to have typos etc. in them.

 

[FatPhil]

maybe. i dont want to reread those really long threads again. But if the claim of "this cannot be manmade" refers to the "pure bismouth layer"...wouldnt a lab analysis showing the layer is not pure be a debunk of the claim that it "has to be extraterrestrial because there is no pure bismuth on earth?"

But there is pure bismuth on earth, so that claim is nonsense anyway. Buy some - it's cheap! https://www.amazon.com/Pounds-99-99-Pure-Bismuth-Metal/dp/B07J5BNWLX
Note that 99.99% is better than what one might call the gold standard for a mineral/metal being considered pure. (The actual gold standard being: "The minimum acceptable fineness is 995.0 parts per thousand fine gold." https://www.lbma.org.uk/publications/the-otc-guide/london-good-delivery-gold-and-silver )

 

[Mauro]

A comment was made here earlier that this report hasn't met with much publicity. I just browsed Yahoo News and came upon this local-interest puff-piece tidbit, which appears to refer to the (unnamed) "usual suspects" at Skinwalker Ranch, but does nevertheless link to info about the AARO report.

https://news.yahoo.com/investigation-paranormal-activity-utah-confirmed-040624739.html

That's exactly what I meant (thanks for the link, btw).

I have seen very few news pieces about the AARO report (not that I searched specifically, just while browsing, or by being pointed at them). In respect to news of 'UFO sightings', they are few, scattered and not put in evidence. A general trend I found (three samples out of four, and for the fourth I have no data) is the title of the article to be misleading, it never happens to say clearly "The long-awaited congressional report says there are no extraterrestrial crafts" (even if this is then said in the body of the article).

1. The article quoted by @Ann K above (Yahoo News). The title is "Investigation into paranormal activity in Utah confirmed by Department of Defense". No, really.
2. An article on The War Zone (https://www.twz.com/air/dod-to-depl...-collect-intel-on-unidentified-flying-objects) titled "DoD To Deploy ‘Gremlin’ Sensors To Collect Intel On Unidentified Flying Objects" [which is an interesting topic, by the way].
3. An article on CNN, for which I'm sorry but I did not keep the link, in little evidence down in the main page, with the same focus in the title on the same 'Gremlin' sensor The War Zone speaks of (iirc it was published the day after AARO report went public).
4. The article pointed by @DavidB66 in post #119 (UK Times), which I could not look at because there was no link given and UK Times is paywalled.

I found nothing else. In particular, nothing at all in Italian news, while, for instance, the "Ukraine UFO" (https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ukraine-ufo-on-thermal-camera-footage.13368/) got numerous embeddings in prominent positions in the main page of different outlets. The bitter fact is everybody is fed the UFO story when there is something exciting, ie. a whistleblower's Congress hearing, but then almost nobody comes to know that reality has set in. Which is very bad and sad, and possibly explains some percentage of the resilience of bunk.

 

[Mendel]

Scientic American released another op-ed by Sean Kirkpatrick on the day the report came out, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sean-kirkpatrick-in-scientific-american.13378/

Politico ran an article on the report, digging a little deeper on KONA BLUE: "US once considered a program to reverse-engineer alien spacecraft, Pentagon report reveals" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/08/us-alien-spacecraft-program-pentagon-report-00146013

Btw, Kirkpatrick's January SA article said KONA BLUE was declassified:

Article:

AARO’s archival research has located the administrative proposal for the DHS SAP, complete with the participants, which has been declassified and is being reviewed for public release.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-what-i-learned-as-the-u-s-governments-ufo-hunter/

 

[krautbernd]

The switch from UFO to UAP (Aerial) was done to distance from the stigma of the term UFO. There's nothing wrong with this. The switch from UAP (Aerial) to UAP (Anomalous) was most literally done to consider a broader set of phenomena that have proven to make up unidentified sightings, such as, mirages, which are not a flying object, and thus cannot be a UFO. In such cases, the term UAP (Anomalous) or something of the sort is a far more accurate reference than calling it a UFO. This, makes it more concrete and encompassing of more observed qualities than the term UFO, which would be misleadingly and inaccurately applied to many sightings.

Oh I am well aware of the reasons brought forward as to why these changes were "needed". I'd wager most people on metabunk are. This is not about the underlaying rational, this is about what it resulted in - a meaningless term with no inherent qualities that can be applied to pretty much anything, including transdimensional entities, ghosts, angels, demons etc. It illustrates why "asking both sides for evidence" is pointless and misleading because it implies equivalence where none exists.

 

[Mauro]

Scientic American released another op-ed by Sean Kirkpatrick on the day the report came out, see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/sean-kirkpatrick-in-scientific-american.13378/

Politico ran an article on the report, digging a little deeper on KONA BLUE: "US once considered a program to reverse-engineer alien spacecraft, Pentagon report reveals" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/08/us-alien-spacecraft-program-pentagon-report-00146013

Btw, Kirkpatrick's January SA article said KONA BLUE was declassified:

Article:

AARO’s archival research has located the administrative proposal for the DHS SAP, complete with the participants, which has been declassified and is being reviewed for public release.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-what-i-learned-as-the-u-s-governments-ufo-hunter/

Thanks!

Two more data points, both with an ambiguous/misleading title (so we are at 5 misleading/ambiguous titles in 6 articles, the 6th one having no data).

5. Scientific American, 6th March 2024, titled "We Need to Investigate UFOs. But Without the Distraction of Conspiracy Theories". The article by itself does not say anything about the results found in the AARO report, so it barely qualifies for its inclusion in the list.
6. Politico 8th March 2024, titled "US once considered a program to reverse-engineer alien spacecraft, Pentagon report reveals", which is as misleading as it can get. The article itself correctly states facts.


Could maybe Metabunk distinguish itself and change the title of this thread from a neutral "AARO's Historical UAP Volume 1 Report" to something more decisive such as "AARO's Historical UAP Volume 1 Report finds no evidence whatsoever of extraterrestrials"?

 

[Mendel]

Oh I am well aware of the reasons brought forward as to why these changes were "needed". I'd wager most people on metabunk are. This is not about the underlaying rational, this is about what it resulted in - a meaningless term with no inherent qualities that can be applied to pretty much anything, including transdimensional entities, ghosts, angels, demons etc. It illustrates why "asking both sides for evidence" is pointless and misleading because it implies equivalence where none exists.

Yes. In a way, the move from aliens and UFOs to NHIs and UAPs means more assumptions are getting stripped away, until what remains is "anything unknown", with the implicit title of "if you can't explain what it is, I'll believe it is what I want".

In the present context of AARO and "disclosure", it becomes "if you won't reveal what you know, we'll accuse you of conspiracy", national security be damned. That's the direction @Stryer is pushing as well, though he stops short of the accusation.

But if you look at it closely, that demand for evidence usually comes with a failure to account for their own beliefs, and these unsupported beliefs generally range from insulting to slanderous. For that reason alone, it's not a side I would wish to be on.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Oh I am well aware of the reasons brought forward as to why these changes were "needed". I'd wager most people on metabunk are. This is not about the underlaying rational, this is about what it resulted in - a meaningless term with no inherent qualities that can be applied to pretty much anything, including transdimensional entities, ghosts, angels, demons etc. It illustrates why "asking both sides for evidence" is pointless and misleading because it implies equivalence where none exists.

Right, now, put into perspective what actually enabled this. The reason this term exists is not because of the government in that way. The government consistently tried to keep it away from that, a select group of individuals propagated whacko ideas related to it, and these individuals, also just so happen to be the only ones to come out and talk up the programs at all, conicidentally, aligned with their BS. This is patently a development that happened because we wanted the government to act serious, the government itself took it serious and acted in kind. To put the onus on the government there is a bit of a false start.

 

[jplaza]

The test reports/data on Art's Parts would not be releasable because they were provided as TTSA property under the CRADA between TTSA and the designated US Army organization. Releasing that data without TTSA concurrence would likely open that Army organization to both criminal and civil action

Question from ignorance: Why the results/conclusion of the analysis can be written in a report, but the related data is not releasable?

I understand the scope of this report is not suitable for a scientific/technical report on the analysis of a sample. Also, that if there's an NDA (or similar) between TTSA and AARO, that prevents the latter to release the data even if asked for it. But shouldn't the NDA then also cover the results?

 

[Duke]

Question from ignorance: Why the results/conclusion of the analysis can be written in a report, but the related data is not releasable?

I understand the scope of this report is not suitable for a scientific/technical report on the analysis of a sample. Also, that if there's an NDA (or similar) between TTSA and AARO, that prevents the latter to release the data even if asked for it. But shouldn't the NDA then also cover the results?

TTSA isn't mentioned by name in the report.

 

[Mendel]

TTSA isn't mentioned by name in the report.

As far as we know, they still own the part.

 

[Mendel]

As far as we know, they still own the part.

Compare:

Article:

Musician Tom DeLonge’s team of UFO investigators and power brokers who comprise To the Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences (TTSA) is working in conjunction with the United States Army and supplying the top brass with UFO materials. At long last, and somewhat openly, Army officials intend to verify solid physical evidence of the existence of UFOs, beginning with a piece of metal alleged to have come from an alien spacecraft.

In October 2019, (TTSA) announced a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command “to advance TTSA’s material and technology innovations in order to develop enhanced capabilities for Army ground vehicles.” TTSA will share its discoveries with Ground Vehicle System Center (GVSC) and Ground Vehicle Survivability and Protection (GVSP). In turn, the Army is committed to providing laboratories, expertise, support, and resources to help characterize the technologies and its applications.

In July of 2019 DeLonge’s UFO organization, according to its September SEC filings, paid $35,000 for exotic metamaterials from longtime UFO researcher Linda Moulton Howe. The purchase is part of TTSA’s ongoing Acquisition and Data Analysis of Materials program. The expressed purpose, according to TTSA, is to “conduct rigorous scientific evaluations to determine its function and possible applications.”

Source: https://www.gaia.com/article/tom-delonges-ttsa-now-working-with-army-to-study-ufo-materials

See also @NorCal Dave's post earlier: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aaros-historical-uap-report-volume-1.13375/post-312116

 

[Stryer]

i have to convince every single believer?

if presenting evidence doesnt matter because every believer isnt going to change their minds...then what is the point of Metabunk?

Indeed. Something weird is going on here.

If there's no point in presenting evidence because believes won't change their mind then why argue anything.

I've had debates with antivaxxers. Not all will change their mind but I think it's still important to publish science on the matter.

 

[Stryer]

I guess I fail to see what the point of a detailed analysis of Art's Parts is going to show. The real question is why AARO was fooling around with them at all? I suppose it's because some credulous member of congress insisted on it. The result is we now have AARO giving credence to this sample and a purported cover up by not sharing all the relevant data.

To review, these bits of junk have been floating around the UFO community for over 25 years and have been repeatedly analyzed. It's pretty common knowledge what they are made of and where they came from to a point.



The particular piece from Art's Parts collection mentioned by AARO is the sample of layered magnesium and bismuth. It has ZERO provenience. It just showed up in the mail addressed to Art Bell of the fringe late night radio show Coast to Coast AM as part of a collection of "recovered" pieces from the Roswell UFO crash. Or that's the story told in the bonkers set of anonymous letters that accompanied it. Again, zero provenience, nobody knows where it originated or how it was collected.

It has a checkered provenance after showing up in Art Bell's mail. He seems to have given it to "investigative UFO journalist" Linda Moulton Howe (LMH), a regular on his show up until she pushed a story about the Apollo 20 mission finding aliens on the moon. Apollo 17 was the last mission. She had a number of people look at it including, a then unknown Travis Taylor, now a regular on Ancient Aliens, the star of Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch and former chief scientist for the UAP Task Force. In a demonstration he did in the '90s for LMH it appears he first suggested this material would be weightless if enough current was run through it.

LMH would occasionally take Gorgio Tokoplos of Ancient Aliens to some secret looking room to show him Art's Parts, including the one in question. At some point former Blink 182 front man Tom DeLong got a hold of this sample in an undisclosed way. He had the busniess accument to then sell the sample to his own company for a cool $35K. His company, The To The Stars Acadamy (TTSA) was founded by him, an ex-CIA guy and Dr. Hal Putoff. I think we will be hearing Putoff's name a lot in this thread.

Puthoff and DeLong managed to convince some US Army people that this bit of junk was special and entered a non-paying contract to study it. It appears form the AARO report that TTSA, or whatever is left of that company, gave the sample to AARO for yet more testing.

My own personal opinion is that AARO should have just said: "This piece of junk has no known origin and despite all the claims of its current and former owners, no one has EVER, EVER, EVER demonstrated any thing remotely close to the claims associated with it. Until such demonstrations are made, we will ignore it."

History of the sample here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/meta-materials-from-ufos.12995/

EDIT: @deirdre pointed out to me that TTSA actually had other parts of Art's Parts, besides the Mg-Bi layered one. Like the Mg-Bi sample, they were sent in the mail but turned out to be just bits of aluminum, including some sort of vent. Those parts were covered in this thread and shows that Art's Parts were simply pieces of junk that were only associated with the Roswell UFO crash because of the previously mention fantastical letters that accompanied them:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ttsas-metamaterials.10840/

Simply not how science works. You cannot simply state "of course this is how I think it is" so you have to agree. You have to make a claim and then back it up.

 

[John J.]

This may also explain the heightened level of FOIA redactions that John Greenewald started noticing in 2023.

Speculation by me- I don't know how these things work- but I wondered if some redactions might be due to a possibility of investigations into the use of allocated public funds by one or more independent sector recipients, whose work was described in the AARO report as being without merit (or something like that).

-While I'm here, and on a completely different subject it would be interesting to see the accounts of the Skinwalker Ranch set-up.
"Well Bob, I've done some checking, and accredited giant phantom beaver trackers, they don't come cheap. We've already shelled out on half an acre of 18-inch thick flypaper this month, and we really should consider some fencing and signage around the trans-dimensional wormhole ..."

 

[Mendel]

The test reports/data on Art's Parts would not be releasable because they were provided as TTSA property under the CRADA between TTSA and the designated US Army organization. Releasing that data without TTSA concurrence would likely open that Army organization to both criminal and civil action.

So the question is, what amount of information is exempt from TTSA permission, and what did TTSA permit to be released? I suspect that, again, the UFOlogists are the ones keeping secrets.

CRADA excerpts:
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/army/TTSA-ARMY-CRADA.pdf

Content from External Source

 

[Eburacum]

Simply not how science works. You cannot simply state "of course this is how I think it is" so you have to agree. You have to make a claim and then back it up.

Earlier you said that it is routine for the details of a scientific report to be classified. I've asked my daughter about this, since she is a mathematical biologist PHD doing classified work for the UK plant and animal health agency; she agrees that, yes, it is entirely possible for scientific papers to be classified for a range of reasons - quite often simply for reasons of privacy or commercial confidentiality.

I can't see how John Greenwald, or ourselves, or anyone, can expect full disclosure on any short timescale.

 

[Mendel]

Simply not how science works. You cannot simply state "of course this is how I think it is" so you have to agree. You have to make a claim and then back it up.

1. This is a webforum, not a journal.
2. Did you check the reference thread?
3. There was no need to quote that post in full.
4. You've still not told us what exactly you claim Chuck Schumer said, or backed it up with a source.

 

[JMartJr]

switch from UAP (Aerial) to UAP (Anomalous) was most literally done to consider a broader set of phenomena that have proven to make up unidentified sightings, such as, mirages, which are not a flying object, and thus cannot be a UFO. In such cases, the term UAP (Anomalous) or something of the sort is a far more accurate reference than calling it a UFO

Not sure I agree. How anomalous are a set of flares, a butterfly, a Medellin solar balloon or glare that rotates when the camera does, after all? A more appropriate term might be Unidentified Phenomenon That At Least LOOKED Anomalous To Somebody At Some Point, though I understand that UPTALLATSASP is a clunky acronym and so may not catch on.

In most UFO/UAP/UPTALLATSASP cases that I am aware of, the anomalousness seems more a property of the observer/believer than of the object/phenomenon.

 

[Mendel]

Compare:

“The structure and composition of these materials are not from any known existing military or commercial application,” says Steve Justice, current COO of To The Stars Academy and former head of Advanced Systems at Lockheed Martin's “Skunk Works.”

AARO seems to think that this material has known military application; if this is true, TTSA misrepresented that material to the Army—in effect, "here's some scrapings from an Air Force jet, maybe it can make your trucks fly."
(To be fair, TTSA probably did not know that—dangers of dealing in material with unknown provenience.)

 

[deirdre]

but the related data is not releasable?

we dont know that.

 

[NorCal Dave]

You have to make a claim and then back it up.

I'm confused. Which claim are we talking about? AARO's claim that the sample from TTSA was made of magnesium and bismuth and terrestrial in nature? I agree, the analysis should be disclosed, although as @Duke pointed out above, if TTSA still owns this sample, they may have allowed AARO to test it as long as they got to keep the results. That sounds like them.

TTSA is a money-making operation and they acquired Art's Parts because they like UFOs and to monetize the parts. More accurately, DeLong the founder of TTSA, sold them to TTSA, his own company to put a little change in his pocket.

The non-payed contract with the Army and potential paid contracts with any other prospective customers, relies on the magnesium-bismuth sample being somehow strange, other-worldly and magical. TTSA has repeatedly claimed this sample is from a crashed UFO:

The ownership of these assets, which were previously retained and studied by investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe and are reported to have come from an advanced aerospace vehicle of unknown origin, allows TTSA to conduct rigorous scientific evaluations to determine its function and possible applications.

Content from External Source

https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/b...akes-groundbreaking-metamaterials-acquisition and http://archive.is/VxZtZ

That the sample may allow one to "engineer the spacetime metric" among other things:

“If the claims associated with these assets can be validated and substantiated, then we can initiate work to transition them from being a technology to commercial and military capabilities,” adds Justice. “As noted in our October 2017 TTSA kickoff webcast, technologies that would allow us to engineer the spacetime metric would bring capabilities that would fundamentally alter civilization, with revolutionary changes to transportation, communication, and computation.”

Content from External Source

And that it can float:

These are undoubtedly the same materials mentioned by DeLonge on his Joe Rogan interview where he stated, “if you hit it with enough terahertz, it’ll float.”

Content from External Source

https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvg...ic-metals-that-might-actually-just-be-bismuth

Allowing AARO to publish an analysis that states is terrestrial and exabits none of the claims made by TTSA is bad for business. Can they do that? Don't know.

 

[deirdre]

Indeed. Something weird is going on here.

If there's no point in presenting evidence because believes won't change their mind then why argue anything.

I've had debates with antivaxxers. Not all will change their mind but I think it's still important to publish science on the matter.

This happens to me often. People dont respond to what i've said, they respond to what they THINK i might be implying. They become confused by their assumptions and forget what was actually said. Then you've got a "blind men and the elephant" conversation happening.

You should have seen the triangle fiasco. IT's a 2-d triangle. we are all looking at the same thing. There is absolutely nothing complicated about it. But it turns out while i was looking at the actual triangle and assuming they were also looking at the actual triangle, noone but me was actually looking at the triangle.

They all believe evidence needs to be presented for claims. period.
What i find funny is the precedent they are setting up that excuses Corbell and elizondo etc from presenting evidence.
They don't mean what you and i are reading.

 

[jdog]

Is the fixation over Art's Parts in this thread really a debate over the makeup of the materials, or is this a proxy for a broader issue about disclosures in the report? Because debating whether the agency should release a detailed analysis of one set of provenance-free debris of imaginary origins seems pretty esoteric.

Other than woo, is there a substantial reason for someone not steeped in this subject to think this material has unusual properties?

 

[Duke]

So the question is, what amount of information is exempt from TTSA permission, and what did TTSA permit to be released? I suspect that, again, the UFOlogists are the ones keeping secrets.

A point I made a few days ago in post #83 here when I asked why TTSA hadn't released test results. Similar to me in the past asking why Grusch and Elizondo have never released the findings/results of their IG complaints. Would any of them have hesitated to have released results that validated or even gave the slightest credence to their claims?

The AARO does not identify TTSA or DeLonge by name in its report. To claim the USG violated any proprietary/contractual confidentiality agreement as a result of the CRADA, it seems to me TTSA would have to convince a court they are indeed the "private sector organization" referenced in the document. In doing so, they would also have to acknowledge (although not accept, I suppose) the USG found the material to be of terrestrial origin. Not only does this disprove their claims, it makes them look foolish/gullible for dropping $35K on phony alien material. If they were willing to do that, you'd think they'd have already released the results themselves.

The proof of the pudding will be if TTSA files suit or even comments on the report. To my knowledge they have done neither to this point.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

A point I made a few days ago in post #83 here when I asked why TTSA hadn't released test results. Similar to me in the past asking why Grusch and Elizondo have never released the findings/results of their IG complaints. Would any of them have hesitated to have released results that validated or even gave the slightest credence to their claims?

The AARO does not identify TTSA or DeLonge by name in its report. To claim the USG violated any proprietary/contractual confidentiality agreement as a result of the CRADA, it seems to me TTSA would have to convince a court they are indeed the "private sector organization" referenced in the document. In doing so, they would also have to acknowledge (although not accept, I suppose) the USG found the material to be of terrestrial origin. Not only does this disprove their claims, it makes them look foolish/gullible for dropping $35K on phony alien material. If they were willing to do that, you'd think they'd have already released the results themselves.

The proof of the pudding will be if TTSA files suit or even comments on the report. To my knowledge they have done neither to this point.

Too many acronyms. I hardly know what any of them mean.

My question would be, on an assumption that AARO have lied about the test of the material, does AARO have any power to stop TTSA from releasing their test results that would prove that AARO have lied?

Please note I have no reason to believe AARO have lied. This is purely hypothetical.

 

[Duke]

Earlier you said that it is routine for the details of a scientific report to be classified. I've asked my daughter about this, since she is a mathematical biologist PHD doing classified work for the UK plant and animal health agency; she agrees that, yes, it is entirely possible for scientific papers to be classified for a range of reasons - quite often simply for reasons of privacy or commercial confidentiality.

I can't see how John Greenwald, or ourselves, or anyone, can expect full disclosure on any short timescale.

Not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US documents can only be "classified" if the material included within has been deemed necessary for national security reasons. This excludes meeting privacy laws/requirements or commercial proprietary information as neither factor in and of themselves would require a vetted individual with a valid security clearance and a need to know to be granted access.

That's not to say documents cannot be withheld or redacted for public release without being given a security classification for reasons such as your daughter cited, but they aren't classified.

 

[deirdre]

does AARO have any power to stop TTSA from releasing their test results that would prove that AARO have lied?

Unless the government gave TTSA classified clearance status (which is almost impossible to believe), if the government gave ttsa anything* then it is not classified and TTSA can do what ever they want.

*i'm not sure why the government would give TTSA anything... unless it was part of their agreement which i highly doubt.

 

[Mendel]

My question would be, on an assumption that AARO have lied about the test of the material, does AARO have any power to stop TTSA from releasing their test results that would prove that AARO have lied?

I quoted parts of the CRADA (Cooperative Research And Development Agreement) above. The DoD could classify the test results, but if the material is unremarkable, there'd be no justification.

TTSA could always invoke Congressional oversight, i.e. they could tell someone on an appropriate committee, "look, AARO lied, here's the data that proves it", and then that member of Congress could have that investigated.

 

[Mendel]

Other than woo, is there a substantial reason for someone not steeped in this subject to think this material has unusual properties?

No unusual properties of that material have been demonstrated, to my knowledge.

 

[Mendel]

I made a new thread for the press briefing ("media engagement") by acting AARO director Tim Phillips that accompanied the release of this report, because he talked about interesting stuff that's not in the report, and this thread is large enough as it is.

It's at https://www.metabunk.org/threads/aa...l-1-press-conference-with-tim-phillips.13381/ .

 

[Duke]

Too many acronyms. I hardly know what any of them mean.

Don't know that I used any acronyms here that haven't been used throughout this discussion, but I'd be happy to spell out any you are confused about.

My question would be, on an assumption that AARO have lied about the test of the material, does AARO have any power to stop TTSA from releasing their test results that would prove that AARO have lied?

I suggest "prove" is a somewhat nebulous term here. Are you talking scientific or legal proof? They could certain release the reports from the USG, then submit their own test results to the world challenging the USG results. Differences among scientists even looking at the same data are not *uncommon, however. Then it becomes a question of who do you believe?

Proving the USG lied (and damaged TTSA in some way as a result) in a court of law would probably be an arduous undertaking since the burden of proof would be on TTSA as the plaintiff. Short of a USG representative (who could prove he/she was directly involved in the testing process) testifying/providing evidence the USG conspired to falsify test results, not sure how you'd do that.

Please note I have no reason to believe AARO have lied. This is purely hypothetical.

*edit-corrected to not uncommon

 

[2pint]

Indeed. Something weird is going on here.

If there's no point in presenting evidence because believes won't change their mind then why argue anything.

I've had debates with antivaxxers. Not all will change their mind but I think it's still important to publish science on the matter.

Agreed. Seems some people are happy to pick and choose when the science is required for them to determine a conclusion. The underlying bias here is disappointing I have to admit.

 

[Ann K]

A more appropriate term might be Unidentified Phenomenon That At Least LOOKED Anomalous To Somebody At Some Point, though I understand that UPTALLATSASP is a clunky acronym and so may not catch on.

Let's just call them U. Up until the moment they get classified as I.

 

[deirdre]

eems some people are happy to pick and choose when the science is required for them to determine a conclusion.

that's an unfair 'moving the goalposts' tactic if we are talking about the meta materials. The entire story of "my grandpa told me he found [radiator parts] and this slab o slag on a ufo he found in the desert." allows us to come to a conclusion without any science.

so the issue between the story of the meta material and some lab analysis of the meta material is getting jumbled in conversation.

 

[DavidB66]

Not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US documents can only be "classified" if the material included within has been deemed necessary for national security reasons.

Things may have changed since I was in the UK civil service, but in those days security classifications, going upwards from 'Restricted' to 'Top Secret', were supposed to be based on consideration of the national interest , not (e.g.) commercial harm to businesses or embarrassment to politicians. However, there were a variety of 'classifications' in a broader sense, such as 'Commercial in confidence', which were intended to protect wider interests. For example, if a company came in to a government Department to discuss a planning application, the notes of the meeting would probably be marked something like 'planning in confidence'. In practice, the line between 'national interest' and 'private interest' is often blurred, because major commercial decisions may impact on the national economy, or a large sector of it. Or matters affecting foreign businesses might impact on the UK's international reputation or diplomatic relations. And as a catch-all safety net, no civil servant was supposed to disclose information received in the course of their work to an unauthorised person without clearance from above. The penalty for doing so would not be prosecution, but disciplinary proceedings and possibly loss of their job and pension rights.

Added: one thing that has changed since my time is legislation to protect 'whistle blowers'.

 

[Ann K]

so the issue between the story of the meta material and some lab analysis of the meta material is getting jumbled in conversation.

That's true. Nevertheless, the analysis itself is pointless without asking "What are we trying to analyze and where did it come from", especially when dealing with a bit of scrap that somebody sold to a collector, or stuff gleaned from an unidentified area near the beaches of Ubatuba. Nothing about that scenario screams "alien technology, we better analyze it carefully!"